3.3,
as you did between 3.1 and 3.2? That'll tell me how many pages I can
spend on it... if the user-visible interface is still flopping around,
I have to trim the page count I'm planning for it.
==ml
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ht
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 01:56:30PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 07:43:56AM -0400, Michael Lucas wrote:
> > So, Dan, are you planning to rework the whole pf tool suite for 3.3,
> > as you did between 3.1 and 3.2? That'll tell me how many pages I can
&
ur cooperation.
>
> SONNENSCHEIN NATH & ROSENTHAL
> Visit us on the web at http://www.sonnenschein.com
> ---
>
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons
Absolute BSD: http://www.AbsoluteBSD.com/
be a rule set problem, I've
> done something wrong, could suggest what I might be able to do to get
> this working.
>
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons
Absolute BSD: http://www.AbsoluteBSD.com/
numbers on the
line. Judging from Google, nobody else is trying to specify message 3
code 9 or such. How do these need to be formatted?
Thanks!
==ml
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons
g the OS would save me time and energy.
My question is, are the flags above reasonable if concealing your OS
is your goal?
==ml
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons
Absolute BSD: http://www.AbsoluteBSD.com/
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:07:20PM +0100, Saad Kadhi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 08:08:55AM -0500, Michael Lucas wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:02:28PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > > oh wow, a real advantage.
> > > if someone wants to know I'm runni
Hello,
pfctl(8) has options to reload only options, only NAT rules, only
filtering rules, and so on, but no option to reload only the scrub
rules.
Can you reload scrub rules without reloading the entire rules file?
Thanks,
==ml
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED
their network.
> do a ping from the firewall, and you get:
>
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ping: wrote 192.168.3.250 64 chars, ret=-1
>
>
> Anyone have any ideas?
>
>
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons
Absolute BSD: http://www.AbsoluteBSD.com/
e: stability and correctness before new cool stuff.
Don't get me wrong: new cool stuff is good.
Making existing cool stuff work correctly is better.
Designing current interfaces with an eye towards later reuse by
planned new cool stuff is also better.
But my pager never going off is best of
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 07:57:52PM +0100, Daniel Hartmeier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 01:46:27PM -0500, Michael Lucas wrote:
>
> > > I'm questing wether we still should bring new shit in. The number of bugs we
> > > found recently is scary, and the new shit need
States: 0 ]
openbsdtest/etc;
I'm not passing any packets over my SSH rules, but I am passing
packets over the "pass all" rule. Am I misunderstanding ToS? Is the
documentation wrong, and does interactive SSH actually use some other
ToS? Do I obviously need more sleep, be
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 01:39:04PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 22, 2002 at 11:24:57PM -0500, Michael Lucas wrote:
> > When I add a ToS field to that same rule, it appears that that rule is
> > not being processed; instead, it uses the default "pass all" rule
Hello,
Updated once in the morning yesterday, and once in the afternoon after
getting this error.
# pfctl -R -f pf.conf
pfctl: DIOCADDRULE: Device busy
#
I can reload the whole rules file, just not the rules section alone.
Any suggestions?
==ml
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED
ot;normalize" is the number of packets
normalized by scrub. That leaves me wondering what "match" and
"memory" mean.
Any help would be appreciated.
Merry Christmas, all!
==ml
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons
Absolute BSD: http://www.AbsoluteBSD.com/
port 0x2f8/8 irq 3: ns16550a, 16 byte fifo
fdc0 at isa0 port 0x3f0/6 irq 6 drq 2
fd0 at fdc0 drive 0: 1.44MB 80 cyl, 2 head, 18 sec
biomask 4a40 netmask 4a60 ttymask 5ae2
pctr: user-level cycle counter enabled
mtrr: Pentium Pro MTRR support
dkcsum: sd0 had no matching BIOS disk
dkcsum: sd1 had no matc
hat hosts
> them. Todd Miller might get to the machine tomorrow, and hopefully the
> lists will be back up soon. You might have to resend some posts, if they
> got lost.
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Sc
created for them."
Any suggestions? Or should I just wade through "pfctl -a authpf -s
authpf"?
--
Michael Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/q/Big_Scary_Daemons
Absolute BSD: http://www.AbsoluteBSD.com/
see as the most
popular parts.
I cannot post a public URL, as that would be "prior publication" and
invalidate my contract with my publisher. If you would be willing to
do this review, however, please contact me and I will send you the
chapter.
I would need any completed feedback by
at, Dec 28, 2002 at 03:49:55PM -0500, Michael Lucas wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As some on this list know, I'm writing a book on OpenBSD.
>
> Most of the book I can test myself -- I can sit and build ports and do
> installs all day long, after all. The sections on PF are a little
&
20 matches
Mail list logo
